Claimant v MTR Corporation (Crossrail) Limited t/a MTR Elizabeth Line

The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine and reasonably held belief that the claimant committed gross misconduct by attempting to use sick leave to cover his absence while in Pakistan without arranging leave in advance, and refusing to cooperate with the investigation. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. Although harsh, the decision was reasonable given the claimant's lack of responsibility and the employer's need to trust employees follow policies and are where they say they are.

The tribunal found no evidence to support that the investigation or dismissal was motivated by the claimant's Pakistani origin. The investigation was started due to suspicion the claimant was using sick leave to disguise a trip to Pakistan for a family wedding, not because of his race. The allegation was not properly put to the decision-makers in cross-examination. The tribunal concluded a non-Pakistani employee in similar circumstances would have been treated the same way.

The tribunal found the claimant's trip to Pakistan did not arise in consequence of his disability. The primary reason for the trip was concern about leaving him alone at night due to breathing difficulties/choking risk, not treatment for back pain or long covid. Even if the trip was disability-related, the claimant was dismissed not because he went to Pakistan for treatment, but because the respondent believed he had planned his absence and sought to conceal it, refusing to cooperate with the investigation. The treatment would have been proportionate to achieve the legitimate aim of maintaining discipline and trustworthiness.

Dismissed upon withdrawal on 11 June 2025.

Application to amend to add harassment claims was dismissed on 3 June 2025. The claimant failed to provide further and better particulars as ordered, relying instead on the respondent's speculation in their amended grounds of resistance. The application was made late and without proper supporting information.

Application to amend to add victimisation claims was dismissed on 3 June 2025. The claimant failed to provide further and better particulars as ordered despite two tribunal orders. The application was made late and remained unparticularised, causing prejudice to the respondent.